The Usenet alt.religion.bahai newsgroup letters
of Frank Schlatter
"The mighty stronghold shall remain impregnable and safe through obedience to him who is the guardian of the Cause of God." (What's the test for obedience to one who is no longer in this world?)
"It is incumbent upon the guardian of the Cause of God to appoint in his own life-time him that shall become his successor, that differences may not arise after his passing." (If there is no Guardian, then clearly this provision is no longer viable.)
"The Hands of the Cause of God must elect from their own number..." (The Haifa UHJ has decreed that no more Hands can be appointed.)
"The Hands of the Cause of God must be nominated and appointed by the guardian of the Cause of God." (No Guardian = no Hands.)
"The obligations of the Hands of the Cause of God are to diffuse the Divine Fragrances..." (For the Haifa organization the Hands are an extinct institution.)
"This body of the Hands of the Cause of God is under the direction of the guardian of the Cause of God. (In the next world?)
"By this body all the difficult problems are to be resolved and the guardian of the Cause of God is its sacred head and the distinguished member for life of that body." (The UHJ has no sacred head and thus no distinguished member.)
"This fixed money offering (Huquq)...is to be offered through the guardian of the Cause of God." (The sans-Guardian UHJ has provided otherwise.)
"And inasmuch as this House of Justice hath power to enact laws that are not expressly recorded in the Book and bear upon daily transactions, so also it hath power to repeal the same....This it can do because that law formeth no part of the Divine Explicit Text." (Since Shoghi Effendi, the appointed interpreter, identified the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha as a part of the Divine Explicit Text, and since the Universal House of Justice has disregarded or by-passed a number of the Will's provisions, this provision is clearly no longer in effect for that institution.)
"All must seek guidance and turn unto the Center of the Cause and the House of Justice." (The followers of the Haifa organization surely must realize that the "Center of the Cause" referred to in this passage is no longer here. So the only way guidance can be sought from him--Shoghi Effendi--is through his writings and prayer, and, as shown above, Shoghi Effendi's written words can no longer provide guidance for those who follow the sans-Guardian Universal House of Justice.)
From: frank_schlatter@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 20:42:50 GMT
Chess,
It clearly is not possible to ignore the technicalities of the W&T
if one is to be faithful to the Covenants of Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha,
for the Will, as Shoghi Effendi said, "is the Child of the Covenant,"
and also "the Charter of the New World Order." So, unless the
provisions of that document are no longer operational and the Will is cast
aside by the chief institution of the Faith, I think true Baha'is would
be remiss in their duties to the Covenants if they should ignore those
technicalities. That's why I maintain that the sans-Guardian UHJ should
take the unprecedented step of declaring the Will and Testament as passe'.
After all, the members of that organization have determined that there
can be no more Guardians and that there can be no more Hands. Furthermore,
the Haifa UHJ has taken over the Huquq, which, according to the Will is
to "be offered through the guardian of the Cause of God." So
why shouldn't the Haifa UHJ take another unprecedented step and declare
the Will as "Bada" (God changed His mind) and, at the same time,
go on record as saying that Shoghi Effendi's statements in the "Dispensation"
should no longer be looked upon as authoritative, since the sans-Guardian
UHJ is now looked upon by its followers as the authority in the Faith.
That--it seems to me--should be a very simple and straightforward action
for the UHJ to take.
Yes, Chess, the Will is clear that a line of Guardians is anticipated by
the Master. In addition, it should be clear that 'Abdu'l-Baha recognized
in His Will and elsewhere that there was rampant Covenant-breaking in the
family of Baha'u'llah and that it would be ludicrous for him to restrict
the first Guardian's appointment of his successor to the blood-line of
Baha'u'llah. That being the case, it should be apparent that the statement
that says that if the Guardian's "glorious lineage not be matched
with a goodly character, then must he, (the guardian of the Cause of God)
choose another branch to succeed him" that the word "branch"
does not refer to the Aghsan or the blood-line of Baha'u'llah. In other
words, the Guardian must go outside the family line for the appointment.
This is in keeping with 'Abdu'l-Baha's emphasis on the spiritual family
being more important than the physical family. (Read his last Tablet to
America in which He cites what Christ had to say about His family and what
Qurratu'l-'Ayn had to say about hers. Both emphasized the spiritual connection
rather than the physical one.)
I can understand how you might find it easier "to believe that one
person has designs for power-grabbing, etc. than 20+" others. (There
was a total of 27 Hands at the time of Shoghi Effendi's death.) Since you
are not a Baha'i, I can also understand why you may not have read Mason
Remey's "Daily Observations", written while he was in Haifa from
the time of the first Guardian's passing until he left Haifa in the months
prior to his proclamation of April 1960. Were you to read those entries,
you would recognize that Mason Remey was far from an ego-driven, power-grabbing
individual. (And if you were to read the entire diary you'd also realize,
because of the way it is written, that it was not a fabricated or fictional
account that was developed for purposes of lending support to one who planned
to take over the Faith.)
As to the nine Hands who, according to the Will, were to "give their
assent to the choice of the one whom the guardian of the Cause of God hath
chosen as his successor": At the time that Shoghi Effendi identified
Mason Remey as the President of the embryonic Universal House of Justice
there were no Hands of the Faith. Orthodox Baha'is therefore maintain that,
like certain other provisions of the Will which were not then in effect,
that particular provision also was not in effect at the time of Shoghi
Effendi's appointment. (And, no, Chess, the 9 Hands are not synonymous
with the UHJ. The Will states that the Universal House of Justice "must
be elected by universal suffrage," that the "secondary Houses
of Justice must elect the members of the Universal one." All Hands
of the Faith are under the direction of the Guardian, and as the Will says,
the Guardian "must continually urge them...")
On the other hand, you have the Hands of the Faith deciding that Shoghi
Effendi's identification of them as the "Chief Stewards of Baha'u'llah's
embryonic World Commonwealth" gave them the right to assume the role
of a collective guardian of the Cause until they put into place an institution
that they would call the Universal House of Justice but which, as is called
for by the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha, would be minus its sacred
head. That, as you know, is what took place, and the Baha'i world followed
the leadership of the Hands, even though the Will makes no provision for
such a course of action.
Certainly as late as 1954 Shoghi Effendi was asserting that the Guardianship
would be continuing after he left this world. On November 27, 1954, after
making reference to the construction of the International Baha'i Archives
and noting that it was "designed by the Hand of the Cause, Mason Remey,
President of the International Baha'i Council," the first Guardian
wrote: "The raising of this Edifice will in turn herald the construction,
in the course of successive epochs of the Formative Age of the Faith, of
several other structures, which will serve as the administrative seats
of such divinely appointed institutions as the Guardianship, the Hands
of the Cause, and the Universal House of Justice." Orthodox Baha'is
would maintain that you don't need administrative seats for institutions
that are no longer going to exist in this world.
So, yes, Chess, I would aver that there is "something" that lots
of people are missing. I would also contend that history has affirmed that
the majority--even the vast majority--may not always be right, even when
the members of that majority think they are divinely guided.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
From: frank_schlatter@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 16:31:15 GMT
Chess,
Glad to see " those rusty cogs" in motion. Here's a bit o' me
oil... :-)
I'm not a genealogist, but my dictionary tells me that the first definition
of the word "lineage" is "descent in a direct line from
an ancestor." Thus, if 'Abdu'l-Baha wrote, as He did, that if the
child of the guardian should "not inherit of the spiritual within
him (the guardian of the Cause of God) and his glorious lineage not be
matched with a goodly character, then must he, (the guardian of the Cause
of God) choose another branch to succeed him," He was saying that
the Guardian would go outside his lineage. The sans-Guardian UHJ and the
Hands of the Faith who established the sans-Guardian body have, of course,
interpreted the word "branch" to mean "of the blood-line
of Baha'u'llah". However, if you read the English version of the Will--Shoghi
Effendi's translation and therefore his interpretation of the Will--you
will see that, unlike what the first Guardian did at an earlier place in
the Will, within that paragraph there is no added word "Aghsan"
by the word "branch." And the word within his translated version
is in lower case.
Two paragraphs before the passage in question, Shoghi Effendi did set forth
this sentence: "After the passing away of this wronged one, it is
incumbent upon the Aghsan (Branches) the Afnan (Twigs) of the Sacred Lote-Tree,
the Hands (pillars) of the Cause of God and the loved ones of the Abha
Beauty to turn unto Shoghi Effendi..." You'll note that in this instance
the word "Branches" is capitalized.
Now, people can decide that the difference between a capitalized word and
a lower case word is insignificant. But that is not what 'Abdu'l-Baha indicated
in His Will and Testament. He wrote: "What deviation can be greater
than interpolating and falsifying the words and verses of the Sacred Text,
even as testified and declared by Mirza Badi'u'llah!" (By the way,
later in the Will and Testament 'Abdu'l-Baha encouraged the believers to
learn how the Sacred Text can be corrupted and He made a direct reference
to Mirza Badi'u'llah's written confession--a document in which Badi'u'llah
describes how Muhammad 'Ali falsified the Text. 'Abdu'l-Baha wrote: "Please
God, ye will peruse it.")
I agree with you, Chess, that "There is no room for doubt in the W&T
[about the one chosen to be 'Abdu'l-Baha's successor]; it's about as clear
as you can get." I also agree that if there were a "similar unambiguous
designation by Shoghi Effendi, the majority of Baha'is would have accepted
it." My immediate response to this line of reasoning, though, is to
encourage people to study closely the Proclamation of Shoghi Effendi of
January 9, 1951 and to ponder whatever implications there may be in the
exalted language that the beloved Guardian used in that Proclamation. Certainly,
he was not saying that the International Baha'i Council was just a committee
of individuals that he chose to assist him with his work and which would
be dissolved in the future, time uncertain.
He said it was a "weighty epoch-making decision"--a "historic
decision marking the most significant milestone in the evolution of the
Administrative Order of the Faith of Baha'u'llah in the course of the last
thirty years [that is, since the passing of 'Abdu'l-Baha], and he spoke
of the "evolution of this first embryonic International Institution"
that would develop into an officially recognized Baha'i Court [a stage
of its development that he established as a goal of the 10-year Crusade,
a goal that he emphasized in a Cablegram of April 25, 1951, saying that
the Baha'i Court was an "essential prelude to the institution of the
Universal House of Justice"], and then after the Court stage (which
never occurred), the body would be transformed "into a duly elected
body", and then, finally, the organism's "efflorescence into
the Universal House of Justice." Shoghi Effendi said of the "constitution
of the International Council" that "history will acclaim [it]
as the greatest event shedding luster upon the second epoch of the Formative
Age of the Baha'i Dispensation." And he identified the Council's establishment
as "potentially unsurpassed by any enterprise undertaken since the
inception of the Administrative Order of the Faith on the morrow of 'Abdu'l-Baha's
Ascension, ranking second only to the glorious immortal events associated
with the Ministries of the Three Central Figures of the Faith..."
It was to this body that Shoghi Effendi appointed Mason Remey the President.
As to the third point raised in your most recent posting (that is, "the
hands of the Cause had to approve the selection"), I have already
indicated that there were no Hands of the Faith at the time that Shoghi
Effendi announced that Mason Remey was the President of the International
Baha'i Council. I should point out, though, that the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha
does not use the word "approve" regarding the action to be taken
by the nine duly-elected Hands of the Faith. 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will uses the
words "must give their assent," and when Shoghi Effendi was asked
about this in the mid-50's, his response was provided on page one of "Baha'i
News," February, 1955:
"The statement in the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha does not imply that the
Hands of the Cause of God have been given the authority to overrule the
Guardian. 'Abdu'l-Baha could not have provided for a conflict of authority
in the Faith. This is obvious, in view of His own words, which you will
find on page 13 (p. 11 of 1944 U.S. edition) of the Will and Testament
of 'Abdu'l-Baha. 'The mighty stronghold shall remain impregnable and safe
through obedience to him who is the guardian of the Cause of God. It is
incumbent upon...the Hands of the Cause of God to show their obedience,
submissiveness and subordination unto the guardian of the Cause of God,
to turn unto him and be lowly before him. He that opposeth him hath opposed
the True One,' etc."
Chess, Shoghi Effendi definitely did not feel that only certain parts of
'Abdu'l-Baha's Will were to be accepted by a believer. In a letter of October
24, 1925, he set forth the qualifications for a true believer, saying:
" Full recognition of the station of the Forerunner, the Author, and
the True Exemplar of the Baha'i Cause, as set forth in 'Abdu'l-Baha's Testament;
unreserved acceptance of, and submission to, whatsoever has been revealed
by their Pen; loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of our Beloved's
sacred Will; and close association with the spirit as well as the form
of the present day Baha'i administration throughout the world--these I
conceive to be the fundamental and primary considerations that must be
fairly, discreetly and thoughtfully ascertained before reaching such a
vital decision." During the remaining years of his ministry the beloved
Guardian did not change the qualification so that a believer's "loyal
and steadfast adherence" should be to only some parts of 'Abdu'l-Baha's
Will. Instead, he said that the Will and the Aqdas are "inseparable
parts of one complete unit." And that means that the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha
was classified by Shoghi Effendi as the Sacred Text and, as a consequence,
it is not subject to modification by anyone or any institution of the Faith.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
From: frank_schlatter@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:45:22 GMT
Rick Schaut wrote "It's worth nothing (sic) that the particular word
translated as 'branch' in that particular passage is the Arabic word 'ghusn'
(plural is Aghsan). This despite the fact that the Will and Testament is
almost entirely written in the Persian language. If 'Abdu'l-Baha didn't
have a particular meaning in mind, then one wonders why He went through
the trouble."
I'm assuming that Rick intended to write "noting" in his statement,
though I must confess that the word "nothing" gave me pause.
:-)
My concern at this time is whether Shoghi Effendi, when he made his translation--and
thus his interpretation of 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will--also had particular meanings
in mind when he produced that immortal document in English for all of us.
It is my understanding that translations of the Will into other languages
were to be made from Shoghi Effendi's English version. If that is so, the
future translators of the Will need not go back to the original text.
Rick also wrote: "In fact...the word 'ghusn", when used to refer
to a person, has had one and only one meaning throughout all of the Writings
of Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha: it refers to a male descendant of Baha'u'llah."
The Research Department of the Haifa Universal House of Justice has written
otherwise. In a memorandum of 12 October 1994 to the UHJ, responding to
an extended inquiry from Brent Mathieu, it wrote: "It is clear...that
there could not be any authoritative statement limiting the meaning of
these two words ["ghusn" and "Aghsan], since they are by
nature metaphorical. The primary meaning of 'ghusn' is the branch of a
tree and, as the various quotations annexed by Mr. Mathieu to his letter
show, this metaphor has been used in many ways by the Central Figures of
the Faith. The question at issue, therefore, is not whether, in the Baha'i
Writings, the use of the word is confined to designation of the male descendants
of Baha'u'llah (it clearly is not)..."
The Research Department then went on to talk about its perspective on the
metaphorical use of the word "branch" throughout the Will, stating
that "Throughout it is applied to the two Holy Families of the Bab
and Baha'u'llah and Their descendants." Not surprisingly, then, the
Research Department wrote: "This, therefore, is the obvious meaning
of the word 'branch' in the passage in question."
Despite the fact that the Research Department made a contrary distinction
to what he thought to be true regarding what the Central Figures of the
Faith meant when using the word 'ghusn", Rick is clearly in line with
the Research Department when he stated that "It takes some very, shall
we say 'creative', exegesis for one to come away with any different meaning."
On that issue, Rick and the Research Department are in solid accord.
Indeed, any follower of the Haifa UHJ who believes differently and who
would openly declare such a position would make himself vulnerable to a
charge of Covenant-breaking, for that individual would then be promoting
the idea of a different line of authority from that which went from Shoghi
Effendi to the collective guardianship of the Hands of the Cause to the
sans- Guardian Universal House of Justice.
But before everyone in that organization gets completely comfortable with
the position taken by the present authority in their administrative order,
I think they also need to explain away 'Abdu'l- Baha's use of the word
"ghusn" for "branch" in his last Tablet to America.
You will certainly recall that the translation of that message contains
the following details, which emphasize the Master's view that the spiritual
relationship is more important by far than the physical one. He wrote:
"Consider this text of the New Testament: the brothers of His Holiness
Christ, came to Him and they said: 'These are your brothers.' He answered
that His brothers were those who believed in God, and refused to associate
with His own brothers.
"Likewise Qurratu'l-'Ayn, who is celebrated in all the world, when
she believed in God and was attracted to the Divine Breaths, she forsook
her two eldest sons, although they were her two oldest children, because
they did not become believers, and thereafter did not meet them. She said:
'All the friends of God are my children, but these two are not. I will
have nothing to do with them.'
"Consider! The Divine Gardener cuts off the dry or weak branch from
the good tree and grafts to it, a branch from another tree. He both separates
and unites."
Chess Hazlett, of course, thinks the succession of the Faith "hinges
on a lot more than capitalization in the W&T." And he's right.
Among other things is the qualification that Shoghi Effendi established
to identify a true believer: "loyal and steadfast adherence to every
clause of our Beloved's sacred Will", which the followers of the sans-Guardian
UHJ simply cannot meet. And that's why I have suggested that their Universal
House of Justice should declare the Will and Testament as passe', and,
at the same time, their UHJ should also get rid of Shoghi Effendi's "Dispensation,"
for his interpretations in that document certainly do not correlate with
the modus operandi of the sans-Guardian organization.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
From: frank_schlatter@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 16:13:23 GMT
Dear George,
You don't explain why you couldn't make the connection between Shoghi Effendi
and Mason Remey as Guardians. Can you explain why you could make the connection
between Shoghi Effendi and the Hands of the Faith acting as a collective
guardian prior to the establishment of the sans-Guardian UHJ?
As to my use of the word "passe'", it is a term which I think
the authority in the Haifa organization should now employ in its references
to the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha.
As far as I can tell, the Declaration of Trust for your National Spiritual
Assembly--the controlling legal document for the activities of its Trustees
and the general membership--still contains the provision that to be a qualified
member of the Baha'i Faith a person must give "loyal and steadfast
adherence to every clause of 'Abdu'l-Baha's sacred Will." Yet it is
not possible for such a commitment to be met by the believers in the Haifa
organization. For instance, the Will clearly states that the fixed money
offering is to be "offered through the guardian of the Cause of God",
and, in the absence of a Guardian, your UHJ has now gone on record as saying
that, in the absence of the Guardian, the Huquq is now under the control
of the Universal House of Justice.
George, if the authority within your Faith does not operate within the
terms of the "Charter of the New World Order" (Shoghi Effendi's
characterization of 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will), then either the authority is
out of compliance with the Charter, or the Charter is no longer current.
That is, it's defunct, out-dated, passe'. Therefore, to establish its authority,
I think your UHJ should unequivocally declare that the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha
is a document of the past. In that way, its followers won't be distracted
by any of that document's out-moded details, and the UHJ can then proceed
to set up and follow its own, divinely-inspired Charter, one that is fitting
for its current and future operations.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
From: frank_schlatter@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 16:19:40 GMT
Robert Little wrote:
"There will be left the Institution of the Hands of the Cause of God,
long after the three remaining die, there will be left the Institution
of the guardianship, in the form of his 36 years of writings and decisions..."
As I noted at the outset of this thread, the Haifa organization no longer
abides by the provisions of the Will and Testament, despite the fact that
people like Robert Little say there will continue to be the Institution
of the Hands of the Cause (though there will be no Hands) and there will
be the Institution of the Guardianship (though there will be no Guardian).
But surely, if the Universal House of Justice does not have a Guardian
as its "sacred head," then your organization truly must consider
the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha to be passe'.
How otherwise can that institution explain away the provision in the Will
which says that "Should he [the Guardian] not attend in person its
[the Universal House of Justice's] deliberations, he must appoint one to
represent him"? Obviously, since Shoghi Effendi is not attending the
deliberations of the UHJ, there is supposed to be someone there who is
representing him. When did Shoghi Effendi name this representative? Is
there a tenth seat on the UHJ for him? Has the UHJ ever indicated how this
person is making his reports to the Guardian of the Faith after the UHJ
deliberates? And what does the UHJ hear back from the Guardian once his
representative has talked matters over with the Guardian?
Sorry, but I don't see how the above provision related to the Institution
of the Guardianship has any meaning if there isn't a living Guardian to
implement it.. Just as I don't see how the deceased Guardian of the Cause--who
is not able to attend meetings of the Universal House of Justice--can "at
his own discretion" assume the right to expel any of the members of
the UHJ who "commit a sin, injurious to the common weal." Nor
can I see how the deceased Guardian of the Faith is going to "continually
urge" any Hands of the Cause "to strive and endeavor to the utmost
of their ability to diffuse the sweet savors of God, and to guide all the
peoples of the world."
The Institution of the Guardianship is an institution of this world, for
as Shoghi Effendi pointed out in his "Dispensation of Baha'u'llah,"
the Guardian "is bound to insist upon a reconsideration by them [the
other members of the UHJ] of any enactment he conscientiously believes
to conflict with the meaning and to depart from the spirit of Baha'u'llah's
revealed utterances." Among other things, that's why I think that
the authority in your organization should go on record as identifying both
the Will and Testament and the "Dispensation" as passe'.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
From: frank_schlatter@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 20:16:12 GMT
Chess:
If only some things were so simple that a one-word answer would suffice.
You asked whether Shoghi Effendi said that the person whom he appointed
as president of the International Baha'i Council would be his successor.
The short answer is "no." The longer answer is "yes."
If Shoghi Effendi had written: "This appointment of Mason Remey as
the President of the IBC means that he is the one I am appointing as my
successor," we wouldn't be having this exchange under the subject
heading "Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha passe?", for all the believers
(except those who committed themselves to Covenant-breaking) would automatically
have accepted his decision. At the same time, most would also have experienced
great consternation, for in 1951, when Shoghi Effendi named him as the
Council's President, Mason Remey was 77 years of age and the first Guardian
was 54. Thus, had the first Guardian stated openly that a man nearly a
quarter of a century older than he would succeed him as Guardian, the implications
would be clear: Shoghi Effendi anticipated that his departure from this
world would precede that of Mason Remey; hence, the first Guardian did
not have much longer to live.
An article entitled "How and Why Shoghi Effendi Obscured the Appointment
of His Successor and the Consequences", written in August of this
year by Joel B. Marangella, appeared in an earlier posting on alt.religion.bahai.
That document provides the longer--the affirmative-- answer to your question.
If you didn't read it previously, you can find a copy at the following
address:
http://www.rt66.com/~obfusa/council.htm
As you know, in contrast to this position, the Hands and their UHJ have
deemed Shoghi Effendi as silent on the issue of his successor, and on the
basis of their perception, they took over the Faith, believing that certain
provisions of the Will and Testament are no longer operational.
It is my personal view that this whole issue of the succession of Guardians
and the UHJ is one that God has placed upon the Baha'is to test their belief
in all the provisions of the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha. And, frankly,
I think most of us have failed the test.
"If it had been thy Lord's Will, they would have all believed,"
says the Qur'an, and, of course, Baha'u'llah Himself has stated: "But
inasmuch as the divine Purpose hath decreed that the true should be known
from the false, and the sun from the shadow, He hath, therefore, in every
season sent down upon mankind the showers of tests from His realm of glory"
-and- "For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except
himself."
Do we who call ourselves Baha'is truly give our adherence to every clause
of 'Abdu'l-Baha's sacred Will, or are we simply giving lip service to the
"Charter of the New World Order"? In a letter written on behalf
of Shoghi Effendi on March 25, 1930, the first Guardian stated: "The
contents of the Will of the Master is far too much for the present generation
to comprehend. It needs at least a century of actual working before the
treasures of wisdom hidden in it can be revealed." We have not had
anywhere close to "at least a century" in which the provisions
of the Will and Testament have been in actual operation, yet, through one
means or another, the Baha'is have found ways to circumvent what the Will
provides. Shoghi Effendi alludes to "treasures of wisdom hidden"
within the Will. Do we have any notion of what he means? What are the "treasures
of wisdom" in the Will? What makes them hidden? Why are they hidden?
One point that I do want to make before closing this post: I think it is
important that believers recognize what 'Abdu'l-Baha had to say about the
embryo, for it is germane to Shoghi Effendi's characterization of the International
Baha'i Council as the embryonic Universal House of Justice. 'Abdu'l-Baha
stated that "the embryo possesses from the first all perfections...but
they are not visible, and become so only by degrees." You and I both
know that when we talk about the human organism, it's clear that the head
of the embryo will remain the head through the various stages through which
the organism evolves. That same pattern pertains to the embryonic Universal
House of Justice with its embryonic head.
Therefore, Chess, with regard to my viewpoint, the summing-up statement
that you made at the close of your recent posting is an accurate one.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
From: frank_schlatter@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 04:20:55 GMT
Oct. 29, 1998
Michela wrote:
"Let's face it, folks--we Baha'is have screwed up badly by allowing
others to lead us by the nose and tell us what the Covenant meant."
There is undoubtedly much truth in what you have said here, Michela. And
I agree that we "should study the documents." But I'm not sure
I know what you mean by "holistically," for I have seen that
term used for different purposes in different ways. I surmise, though,
that because you have indicated that "Both sides have chosen to ignore,
overlook, or selectively interpret the Will and Testament," that you
maintain that the entire document can somehow be taken in and comprehended
as a whole. I'm wondering if you can explain how that can be done.
When each of us deals with the context of the Will and Testament, we each
bring our own contextual sets with us--and they are all different. Thus,
for each of us our experience with the Will and Testament is going to be
the joint product of who we are and what we bring with us to our encounter(s)
with the Will, as well as what is in the Will itself. And our context may
or may not have included within it what Shoghi Effendi said about the Will.
If we approach the document from the perspective of a follower of the Haifa
Universal House of Justice, that perspective is clearly going to be different
from the perspective of an Orthodox Baha'i, and both of these perspectives
will be different from that of a newcomer to the teachings of the Faith
who has no historical background whatsoever with relation to the Will.
So for you to talk about a holistic approach to the documents creates more
questions for me than I may have had previously, when, in my latest response
to Chess Hazlett, I asked whether anyone had any notion with regard to
what Shoghi Effendi referred to as "the treasures of wisdom hidden
in it."
During my exploration into general semantics, I found the subject of contexts
to be a fascinating one. We should know, for instance, that all words within
a given context interact upon one another--whether those words are within
a phrase, a clause, a sentence, a paragraph, a chapter, a book, a set of
volumes, etc. And then, once you have thrown in our personal experiences
with the words that are found within a given context, you have the framework
for the reading experience. As much as is possible, the interpretations
that we make need to be based on the totality of contexts. So, Michela,
if this is what you are referring to by your use of the word "holistically,"
then I am in agreement with you; and, as I indicated above, I'd like to
know from you how we should embark upon such an enterprise. What's the
best way to understand the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha?
Naturally, we could approach the Will by way of the authorized interpreter
whom we all accept (Shoghi Effendi), and we could view the Will from the
larger context that he provided when he said that the Will is to be considered
as the "Charter of the New World Order." From him we are given
to understand that the Will and the Aqdas are "inseparable parts of
one complete unit." We also know the Will to be "the Child of
the Covenant", that it is "the inevitable offspring resulting
from that mystic intercourse between Him [Baha'u'llah] Who communicated
the generating influence of His divine Purpose and the One ['Abdu'l-Baha]
Who was its vehicle and chosen recipient." So, according to Shoghi
Effendi, we know that the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l- Baha can no more
"be divorced from Him Who supplied the original and motivating impulse
than from the One Who ultimately conceived it."
In the beloved Guardian's other statements about the Will, what other views
do you feel would be instructive in our holistic approach? In other words,
what specific documents of Shoghi Effendi's are applicable? Should we incorporate
the entire Administrative Order section of the "Dispensation"
into the context at hand? Or should we leave it out? And when the decision
is made to use or not to use the "Dispensation"--or any other
of Shoghi Effendi's writings--upon what basis will we make that decision?
Truly we are in the area of judgment calls, but it will not profit us to
put down other's perspectives on the basis of what we ourselves may see
as "facile rationalizations." If we could truly come to grips
with how others have arrived at their conclusions regarding the meaning
of the Will and Testament, we might better understand the Will itself and
perhaps come to some awareness of "the treasures of wisdom hidden
in it."
At this time, my own perspective starts with Shoghi Effendi's reference
to the Will as the "Child of the Covenant." The Covenant in this
case is that bond between Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha which produced the
Will. And since the Will is likened to a "child," the connotation
that I apply to the Will is something more than the product of both Baha'u'llah
and 'Abdu'l-Baha. It is also an organism that will not have all of its
features in place at once. In "Some Answered Questions" 'Abdu'l-Baha,
in talking about the origin of man, relates how "the embryo in the
womb of the mother, gradually grew and developed, and passed from one form
to another, from one shape to another, until he appeared with this beauty
and perfection, this force and this power." Later in the same book
'Abdu'l-Baha says: "The seed does not at once become a tree, the embryo
does not at once become a man, the mineral does not suddenly become a stone.
No, they grow and develop gradually, and attain the limit of perfection."
So it is my thesis that the Will, the Child of the Covenant, cannot be
expected to be fulfilled all at once. Yes, 'Abdu'l-Baha identified the
Guardian as the "sacred head" of the Universal House of Justice,
but all Baha'is are agreed that when Shoghi Effendi became Guardian there
was no UHJ. Nor were there any Hands. Thus, the powers identified within
the Will were latent powers. They were like the web-like appendages that
one sees in a human embryonic organism that gradually evolve into hands
and fingers, etc. It is my belief that our task as Baha'is is to do what
we can to insure that this "Child of the Covenant" has a chance
to evolve into this world with all of its features in working order.
The world cannot afford to have this Child aborted or killed once it is
born and just beginning to expand its powers for the good of mankind.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
From: frank_schlatter@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 16:51:48 GMT
Chess wrote:
"Frank...we appear to be at a quandary."
Chess, my dictionary says that a quandary is "a state of perplexity
or uncertainty, a dilemma," and I'm not sure that you or I view the
situation in which the Baha'i Faith finds itself today with feelings of
perplexity or uncertainty. A dilemma, of course, is a situation that requires
a choice between two evils, or it is an argument that forces an opponent
to choose one of two alternatives equally unfavorable to him or her. And
I don't get the impression, Chess, that you consider the choice you have
made as a choice between two evils, or as an unfavorable alternative.
I think the term that is more appropriate for our present debate is the
word "impasse": a position from which there is no escape, a deadlock,
because I, too, do not have the feeling that the choice I have made is
one between two evils. Granted, I do not like being labelled as a "Covenant-breaker",
even though the meaning of that term has been changed by the leadership
of your administrative order from what it was originally intended to mean.
But that's a fact of life. 'Words don't mean; people mean.' That is, with
the passage of time, the meanings of words change to fit new circumstances.
I know now, for instance, that the meaning of the word "Covenant-breaker"
for your organization is essentially this: one who rejects the authority
within the Cause and attempts to subvert the decisions of that authority.
Normally, the term is applied to an individual who is within your organization
and who has pledged his loyalty to the authority. However, the term is
also used to label anyone who accepted Mason Remey as the second Guardian
of the Faith, or any of those individuals who now call themselves Orthodox
Baha'is, regardless of whether they were ever within the organization that
is now headed by the Haifa UHJ.
As I have indicated in a previous article, an accepted definition of the
term "Covenant-breaker" in Shoghi Effendi's ministry was along
the lines of what Hand of the Cause John Ferraby provided in his earliest
editions of "All Things Made New" when he wrote: "These
Covenant-breakers profess to accept the teachings of Baha'u'llah but they
turn away from the Centre of the Cause--in the day of the Centre of the
Covenant, 'Abdu'l-Baha, and in our day, the Guardian--and thereby they
deny what they profess to accept." (Page 251 of 1957 edition.)
When Mason Remey issued his Proclamation in 1960, the other Hands, who
were then in control of the Faith, decided that Mason Remey and his followers
had to be called Covenant-breakers, even though Mason Remey and his followers
had not turned away from either 'Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi.
In the book "The Ministry of the Custodians 1957-1963" (Pub.
Baha'i World Center, 1992)one finds that Hasan Balyuzi, one of the Hands
at the time of Mason Remey's proclamation, initially expressed his strong
disapproval of the action of the Hands to declare Mason Remey and his followers
as covenant-breakers. Though he declared Mason Remey's position as "laughable,
preposterous, abominable"--and, yes, "ridiculous"--he nevertheless
said, "But I cannot accept the thesis that the Hands have the authority
to expel anyone for this reason. Where do the Hands obtain their authority
to expel anyone from the Community?"
He then went on to write: "From the Will and Testament of Abdu'l-Baha',
these are the exact words of the Master, which I have read and read, and
which I quote:
'My object is to show that the Hands of the Cause of God must ever be watchful
and so soon as they find anyone beginning to oppose and protest against
the Guardian of the Cause of God, cast him out from the congregation of
the people of Baha, and in no wise accept any excuse from him. How often
hath grevious error been disguised in the garb of truth, that it might
sow the seeds of doubt in the hearts of men!'
"Perhaps I'm mistaken, but nowhere else have I found the express authority
to expel people for any reason other than opposition to the Guardian. The
Hands can and must expel anyone who associates with Covenant-breakers,
old and new. They can and must expel anyone who disregards a definite injunction
of the beloved Guardian. Such acts constitute opposition to Shoghi Effendi.
But I'm convinced (and perfectly ready and willing at the same time to
believe otherwise, if conclusive proofs are shown to me) that the Hands
have no authority to expel anyone for any other reason, albeit they are
exercising their indubitable right to protect the Faith. By doing so, the
Hands will be setting up a new category of Covenant-breakers, for which
they have no authority, as far as I can see it."
However, Balyuzi later went along with the rest of the Hands, apparently
feeling that the changed circumstances of the Faith called for a new definition
of a Covenant-breaker, or else the other Hands provided him with undisclosed
"conclusive proofs".
Be all this as it may, you who have accepted that the Hands of the Faith
had the right to assume control of the Faith on the basis of Shoghi Effendi's
having once called them "the Chief Stewards of Baha'u'llah's embryonic
World Commonwealth"--you now follow an institution that is called
the Universal House of Justice. That is, the Hands and their followers
have given that name to the institution that they first elected in 1963.
But, according to the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha, the institution
is not complete. And, based upon one of the earliest decisions of the Haifa
UHJ, it will not be complete for at least a thousand years, because that
Universal House of Justice, as we all know, stated that it found "no
way to appoint or to legislate to make it possible to appoint a second
Guardian to succeed Shoghi Effendi."
It is clear to me that the followers of the Haifa UHJ are sincere in their
belief that the authority exercised by their supreme body is a divinely-vested
authority. It is equally clear to me that certain provisions within the
Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha must, of necessity to that organization,
be ignored--just as much of the Administrative Order section of Shoghi
Effendi's "Dispensation" must also be dismissed as no longer
applicable to the Haifa organization. It is perhaps on this basis, Chess,
that you used the word "quandary" in your recent post, for to
an individual who maintains that the line of Guardians ended with Shoghi
Effendi, you do face two unfavorable alternatives: 1) the choice you have
now made, a mutilated organizational pattern, or 2) the choice that Ruhiyyih
Khanum identified in "Twenty-Five Years of the Guardianship"
when she wrote: "The principle of successorship, endowed with the
right of Divine interpretation, is the very hub of the Cause into which
its Doctrines and Laws fit like the spokes of a wheel - tear out the hub
and you have to throw away the whole thing."
Does the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha offer any other alternatives?
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
From: frank_schlatter@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 14:53:11 GMT
Dear Chess,
I want to thank you for your candor and for the even-handed manner in which
you have dealt with the information provided in this matter before us.
In addition, I want to commend you for the understanding you have shown
with regard to the many details that we have thus far explored together.
Your grasp of the essential elements in the stated positions of the Haifa
organization and of the Orthodox Baha'is has shown that you are indeed
"close to the Faith", and I, for one, welcome your sincere investigation
and look forward to continued exchanges with you. Based upon the depth
of your previous communications, I anticipate that you are not going to
be satisfied with a superficial knowledge of the Cause and, therefore,
that you will not be satisfied with arguments of your own or of others
that are not backed up with textual knowledge. The Faith of Baha'u'llah
truly needs believers who manifest such characteristics.
I thank you, too, for acknowledging what you perceive as my more deepened
view of the Will and Testament, but I'm afraid that what I know regarding
the Will is only the result of having wondered about it for almost forty
years. As you know, in one of my earlier posts I introduced Shoghi Effendi's
statement of March 25, 1930, pertaining to the need for "at least
a century of actual working before the treasures of wisdom hidden in it
can be revealed," and I want to come to some knowledge of what those
treasures are. As a consequence, I don't want anything that has been revealed
in the Will by the Master (and by extension, Baha'u'llah) to come to naught.
You asked in your most recent post if I couldn't "grant that they
[meaning those who are Haifa Baha'is] are actually following the W&T
as best they can". In response, let me give you a bit of my background.
I became a Baha'i in April of 1959 and shortly thereafter married a Baha'i
girl whose mother had been a Baha'i since 1928. When I made my declaration
to the local spiritual assembly, I had but a cursory knowledge of the Will
and Testament, for at that time people who were being taught the Faith
were not exposed to the entire Will. Instead, we were taught from excerpt
versions of the Will. Nevertheless, I knew enough from my reading that
the Will called for a Guardian as the Center of the Cause, and when I declared
I asked the LSA members how I was supposed to rationalize the absence of
the Guardian. I was told that it was a matter that I would have to take
on faith, and I made my declaration on that basis.
One year later Mason Remey made his proclamation, and because during that
year my mother-in-law had insisted that I know the entire Will and had
gone through the entire document with me, word by word and line by line,
our entire family accepted his Guardianship on the basis of our understanding
of the Will. Imagine my shock, then, when all those other Baha'is condemned
my family and me without giving any consideration whatsoever to why we
had made the choice we did. Thus, within just a couple of months of our
acceptance of Mason Remey's Guardianship, we resigned as members of the
Haifa organization and, following our resignations, were accused of carrying
on "covenant-breaking activities."
Chess, I wasn't a Baha'i in 1957 when Shoghi Effendi died, and when I became
a Baha'i I certainly did not know anything about the International Baha'i
Council, for in 1959 the ones who were in control of the Faith were Shoghi
Effendi's appointed Hands. I really came to a full awareness regarding
the IBC subsequent to Mason Remey's proclamation, and I found that Shoghi
Effendi's January 9, 1951, proclamation of the establishment of the IBC
to be an absolutely stunning one. When I reflected on the manner in which
Shoghi Effendi trumpeted the Council's formation, identifying it as "potentially
unsurpassed by any enterprise undertaken since the inception of the Administrative
Order of the Faith on the morrow of 'Abdu'l-Baha's Ascension, ranking second
only to the glorious immortal events associated with the Ministries of
the Three Central Figures of the Faith...," I realized that on the
death of Shoghi Effendi the institution that everyone should have turned
to was not the institution of the Hands but, instead, the International
Baha'i Council. The appointment of the Hands by Shoghi Effendi came in
December of 1951, nearly a year after the formation of the Council, and
Shoghi Effendi said that that step "paralleled the preliminary measure
of the formation of the International Council, destined to culminate in
the emergence of the Universal House of Justice."
So, upon Shoghi Effendi's death in 1957, even if there were no consideration
whatsoever given to the issue of the Guardian's successor, the institution
that the Baha'i world should have turned to was the International Baha'i
Council. That Council should have been the focus, not the institution of
the Hands. But from the outset the Council was ignored. In her November
5, 1957, announcement in a cablegram of the Guardian's death, Ruhiyyih
Khanum, the Guardian's widow, wrote: "Urge believers remain steadfast,
cling institution Hands lovingly reared, recently reinforced, emphasized
by beloved Guardian." And in the United States a day later, the NSA
informed the friends that "The Hands of the Cause will meet in Haifa
shortly thereafter [following the funeral of Shoghi Effendi on November
9] after which announcement will be made to the Baha'i World concerning
the future direction of the Faith."
I can grant, Chess, that because of the direction that was taken by the
Haifa organization back in 1957, and which that organization's members
found impossible to modify in 1960, that "they actually are following
the W&T as best they can." But I don't think it's good enough.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
From: frankschlatter@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 20:17:07 GMT
Richard Schaut stated:
> The issue doesn't hinge on technicalities, and the problem with getting
very
> deeply involved in a discussion of any technical issues is that it
obscures
> the salient facts, facts which are not in dispute, upon which the
issue of
> any successor to Shoghi Effendi must hinge. These salient facts are:
1) that
> Shoghi Effendi passed away without issue; 2) that Shoghi Effendi never
> explicitly appointed a successor; and 3) that Shoghi Effendi never
sought the
> assent of the Hands of the Cause regarding any appointment he is alleged
to
> have made.
I agree that Richard's three numbered items are statements of fact.
I disagree with Richard's view that "In light of this, there really
are only two possibilities." There actually is at least a third, which
is that the divine guidance that Baha'is have felt to be promised the Baha'i
Faith actually is not there, and thus the administrative order will simply
end up being a man-made product.
I also disagree with Richard's position that if Shoghi Effendi appointed
a successor and subsequently "failed to implement the provision [of
the Will] regarding the assent of the Hands of the Cause," that such
a failure on Shoghi Effendi's part would "constitute a violation of
the provisions of the Master's Will and Testament." The reason why
I think that Richard is wrong is that the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha does not
make it incumbent upon the Guardian of the Cause of God to appoint Hands.
Granted, the Will establishes that it is the Guardian who is the one responsible
for appointing whatever Hands there are, but the Will doesn't say that
Hands must be appointed. Because of the other provisions within the Will,
I think most people assume that 'Abdu'l-Baha made it mandatory for the
Guardian to appoint Hands. After all, there are designated responsibilities
for the Hands, most important of which, I think, is their responsibility
to "diffuse the sweet savors of God..."
But note what the Will says: "O friends! The Hands of the Cause of
God must be nominated and appointed by the guardian of the Cause of God."
To be sure, when there is a sufficient number of Hands of the Cause available,
one of their important duties is that they "must elect from their
own number nine persons that shall at all times be occupied in the important
services in the work of the guardian of the Cause of God." However,
during the lifetime of Shoghi Effendi, when there were enough Hands to
have such an election, that election was not held. In point of fact, it
also wasn't held after Shoghi Effendi's death. It is the elected body of
nine Hands that is charged with the responsibility of assenting to the
choice of the Guardian's successor. If, then, there was a violation of
the Master's Will, it would appear that the Hands were at fault for not
having such an election and seeing to it that those nine persons were "at
all times...occupied in the important services in the work of the guardian..."
After all, the Will is explicit in this matter:
"The Hands of the Cause of God must elect from their own number nine
persons that shall at all times be occupied in the important services in
the work of the guardian of the Cause of God."
Why didn't THAT election take place? Is the fact that it didn't take place
sufficient cause to set aside a host of other provisions in the Will and
Testament? For a moment, completely put aside the history of the Faith
from 1957 to 1998 , and set up the following hypothetical situation. Consider
that the Guardian of the Faith makes the choice of his successor and he
announces it to the Baha'i world. Consider that there are a sufficient
number of Hands of the Faith at the time to elect from their own number
the nine who are to assent to the Guardian's choice of his successor. Now
throw into the mix that, for whatever reason, the Hands of the Faith do
not hold their election of the nine Hands. Would that mean that the Guardian's
choice of his successor would be invalidated by this action or non-action
of the Hands?
I think Shoghi Effendi answered that question when, in the "Baha'i
News" of Feb. 1955, he said that "The statement in the Will of
'Abdu'l-Baha does not imply that the Hands of the Cause of God have been
given the authority to overrule the Guardian. 'Abdu'l-Baha could not have
provided for a conflict of authority in the Faith. This is obvious..."
Finally, I do want to note that I also disagree with the position espoused
by Richard when he says: "As for the disposition of the Huquq'u'llah,
that's provided for in the Kitab-i Aqdas itself." The Kitab-i-Aqdas
does not explicitly identify the recipient of the Huquq. The identity of
the one to receive the Huquq is in the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha;
the Huquq is to be "offered through the guardian of the Cause of God."
Those who interpret the passage in the Kitab-i-Aqdas that refers to the
"endowments dedicated to charity" apparently believe that those
endowments are the same thing as the Huquq. Through that interpretation
they have sought to make it possible for the Haifa UHJ to administer the
Huquq, just as they have interpreted that passage of Baha'u'llah's to be
"One of the most striking passages which envisage the possibility
of...a break in the line of Guardians." Neither conclusion can be
looked upon as explicitly provided by the Aqdas. The interpretations to
arrive at such conclusions were not made by either 'Abdu'l Baha or Shoghi
Effendi, and I believe that those interpretations are wrong.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
Nov. 2, 1998
First, Chess, just a small clarification: It was not Mason Remey who said
that Shoghi Effendi made the appointment of him as the second Guardian
in the manner that he did because Shoghi Effendi was aware that he would
die in the near future. In one of his encyclical letters, written after
his proclamation, Mason Remey wrote: "Now _why_ Shoghi Effendi made
my appointment of Guardianship in the particular way in which he did, I
do not know."
It has been those of us who followed Mason Remey who looked for explanations
for the appointment to be made in the way it was. It is we who have come
up with such justifications as have been offered.
Your position, Chess, is that such an appointment "would require a
gross lack of foresight on the part of the guardian...and I can't attribute
that to him. For him not to have perceived this 'end result' wherein almost
six million Baha'is worldwide have 'gone astray' because of his method
of 'declaring a successor without declaring a successor' is simply incomprehensible
to me, whatever the reasoning behind it."
I would stipulate that the whole matter is unreasonable.
And yet-- Are you familiar with the Battle of Badr in the second year of
the Hegira? It's my understanding that a mere 300+ men under Muhammad,
mostly unarmed, fought against a well-armed Meccan army, a force that included
experienced warriors and who numbered over a thousand, and defeated them.
That certainly was unreasonable, too. Or take the case of Gideon in the
Bible. That, also, was unreasonable. In like manner, in the annals of the
Babi Faith we have the example of the defenders of Shaykh Tabarsi, who,
at the outset, numbered some 300 Babis untrained in the art of war who
remained undefeated, even though regiment after regiment of soldiers were
dispatched to conquer them. The opposers were only able to bring about
their surrender after ignominiously making an oath on the Qu'ran to permit
them safe passage and then slaughtering them when they came out of the
fort.
Perhaps it would be well to remember that the Covenant of Baha'u'llah actually
is not dependent upon the Baha'is. Rather, the success of our efforts to
establish His Administrative Order is dependent upon the power of the Covenant.
And that is probably unreasonable, too.
Indeed, so much that is related to the dispensations of the Prophets of
God simply has to be looked upon as unreasonable. It's unreasonable that
Moses could have led His people, it's unreasonable that the Christian faith
would have spread in the manner that it did, it's unreasonable that Muhammad's
influence in the world would be what it is today. Thus, it shouldn't be
any great shock to experience the unreasonable-ness of God's testing his
servants within the Baha'i Cause to insure that they abide within the Covenant.
But it is unreasonable.
The Bab affirmed: "Should it be Our wish, it is in Our power to compel,
through the agency of but one letter of Our Revelation, the world and all
that is therein to recognize, in less than the twinkling of an eye, the
truth of Our Cause." Now, Chess, DON'T ask me why that didn't happen!
:-)
Obviously, Chess, the reason why people like me are Orthodox Baha'is is
because we have the perverse notion that the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha
is sacrosanct and that, unreasonable or not, somebody needs to abide by
that Document, no matter what.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
From: frankschlatter@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 16:51:07 GMT
Richard Schaut wrote:
> Is the Master's Will and Testament Passe'? Only if we do precisely
what Mr.
> Schlatter has done.
I get the impression, Richard, that your dictionary has a different definition
for the word "passe'" than mine. My dictionary says that the
word means "past, past its usefulness; out-of-date." What is
it that I have done to make the Will passe'? Throughout this thread my
recommendation has been for the Haifa UHJ to declare the Will to be passe'
because insofar as the organization for which it is the authority is concerned
the Will is no longer useful. Truly, any organization that calls itself
Baha'i and which is minus a living Guardian cannot consider the Will of
'Abdu'l-Baha to be a current document. So, clearly, for that organization
the Will is passe'.
You have indicated, Richard, that I have introduced issues that are "irrelevant
to the fundamental question." What do you see as the fundamental question,
and what issues have I introduced that are unrelated to it?
You have also indicated, Richard, that my logic is flawed, saying that
I have begged the question. In my introductory post to this thread I identified
10 statements from the Will and Testament that the Haifa organization can
no longer see as operational. On the basis of those statements, I have
suggested that the Haifa UHJ should openly declare the Will of 'Abdul'-Baha
to be passe'. My contention has been that such an action by the Haifa UHJ
would mean that the members of that organization would no longer be distracted
by the provisions of the Master's Will and they can therefore proceed to
make whatever adjustments they feel necessary to develop their administrative
order. What is so illogical about that?
I might point out also that your most recent post appears to be predicated
on the assumption that the acceptance by Orthodox Baha'is of Mason Remey's
Guardianship came prior to an exploration into the Writings themselves.
I did not say that we accepted Mason Remey's Guardianship before studying
the Sacred Text. We accepted his Guardianship on the basis of having studied
the writings of the Faith. I know for a fact that to accept his Guardianship
makes as much sense as to accept the takeover by the Hands of the Faith
on the basis of a single reference to them by Shoghi Effendi as the "Chief
Stewards of Baha'u'llah's embryonic World Commonwealth". The explanations
that we have developed in discussing why Shoghi Effendi made his appointment
of Mason Remey in the way that he did came after--not before--our acceptance
of his Guardianship.
Finally, you have made reference to my creative interpretations of a number
of the provisions of 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will, for which you provide no supporting
documentation; and, in all fairness, you should provide some specifics
to support that view, even though you went on to say that it "is not
the logical fallacies themselves" that have placed me outside Baha'u'llah's
Covenant. Rather, you say, I am a covenant-breaker because of my support
of an illegitimate claim to leadership within the Baha'i Faith. Richard,
can you provide supporting documentation from the writings of the Faith
to show how the take-over by the Hands in 1957 made them the legitimate
authority of the Faith? And bearing in mind that 'Abdu'l-Baha was Baha'u'llah's
authorized Interpreter, can you establish unequivocally that a Universal
House of Justice that is minus its "sacred head" should be identified
as the Faith's legitimate authority? If you can do that, perhaps I--and
anyone else who is reading this thread--will see the error of my ways.
I look forward to studying your documentation.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
From: frankschlatter@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 16:58:09 GMT
In article <19981103144558.06765.00003377@ng137.aol.com>,
laaeterna@aol.com (LaAeterna) wrote:
> I think this is what happened with both the Remey followers and those
who set
> up the Universal House without the Guardian. Neither can find explicit
textual
> refeences allowing their function as they stand now. So---perhaps
finger
> pointing and labeling are inappropriate responses on either side.
> nancy
So, Nancy, what's your solution? Do you have an alternative in mind to
the current situation? Granted that Baha'is shouldn't be finger pointing
and labeling at this time. What do you think Baha'is SHOULD be doing today?
(What are you doing?)
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
From: frankschlatter@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 16:06:41 GMT
It has been my experience over the course of a goodly number of years that
a member of the Haifa organization will either attempt to pass off a number
of judgments and inferences as proof, resort to name-calling, or back away
from further discussion when he or she is asked to provide supporting documentation
that would unequivocally establish the legitimacy of the actions of the
Hands of the Faith when, following the death of Shoghi Effendi, they assumed
control of the Cause and subsequently established their sans-Guardian UHJ.
I do hope that such will not be the case in the current thread "Is
the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha passe'?", because I would really like to
see whether anyone in the Haifa organization can provide something more
than a series of assumptions and unauthorized interpretations to justify
that which was done by the Hands when they proclaimed themselves the authorities
for their administrative order.
Haifa Baha'is are quick to accuse Orthodox Baha'is of using flawed logic
when we point to Shoghi Effendi's proclamation of January 9, 1951, establishing
the embryonic Universal House of Justice and extolling that action in the
most laudatory of terms, and then our postulating that the succession of
the Faith stemmed from that action by the first Guardian. In a similar
vein, Orthodox Baha'is question how the Haifa Baha'is can maintain with
assuredness that their reasoning is sound. We who believe that the institution
of the Guardianship requires a living Guardian have maintained that, at
the very least, following the first Guardian's passing, the institution
of the Faith that should have been looked to by all Baha'is was the International
Baha'i Council--not the Hands of the Faith. After all, as the embryonic
Universal House of Justice, the International Council would take precedence
over those who, according to the Will and Testament, are to work under
the direction of the Guardian of the Cause. Insofar as I can determine,
the Will of the Master does not place the Hands of the Faith on the same
level as the UHJ.
Unfortunately, though, from the very first announcement of Shoghi Effendi's
death by Ruhiyyih Khanum, the International Council was ignored and the
institution of the Hands was highlighted. You will recall that in an earlier
posting I pointed out that Ruhiyyih Khanum's cablegram of November 5, 1957,
said: "Urge believers remain steadfast, cling institution Hands lovingly
reared, recently reinforced, emphasized by beloved Guardian." Clearly,
Ruhiyyih Khanum did not see the Council to be as important as the Hands,
and apparently most NSA's also viewed the Hands as the ones who should
be in control of the Faith. Otherwise, the members of the 26 NSA's at the
time would not have passed resolutions that gave their support to the Hands.
It was, of course, on this basis alone that the Hands could say that they
had the legal authority to do what they did, for neither the interpretations
and instructions of the first Guardian nor the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha
provides for the exercise of such authority by the Hands.
So, when the situation is looked at logically, what was put into place
was something other than what the writings have called for, and Shoghi
Effendi's constitution of the International Baha'i Council was by-passed
for a new line of authority.
Aside from the NSA's giving the Hands this authority, what statements in
the writings were the Hands able to employ to justify their new position?
Didn't they seize upon Shoghi Effendi's having characterized them as "the
Chief Stewards of Baha'u'llah's embryonic World Commonwealth"? And
didn't they maintain that they found further support for their position
in Shoghi Effendi's reference in a 4 June 1957 statement to their twin
functions of protecting and propagating the Faith of Baha'u'llah? Never
mind that those functions of the Hands were already established in the
Will and Testament.
Indeed, those functions weren't something that Shoghi Effendi dreamed up.
The Will says "that the Hands of the Cause of God must be ever watchful
and so soon as they find anyone beginning to oppose and protest against
the guardian of the Cause of God cast him out from the congregation of
the people of Baha." And, of course, it indicates that "The obligations
of the Hands of the Cause of God are to diffuse the Divine Fragrances..."
So the protection and propagation functions of the Hands cannot be looked
upon as adequate justification for their takeover. 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will
simply does not provide for such an interpretation.
Upon what authority, then, did the Hands assume control? The answer is
a simple one. They did it on their own recognizance and with the blessing
of the NSA's. They certainly did not do it on the basis of the Will and
Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha because, for them, the Will and Testament was
no longer a viable instrument to guide their administrative order. No,
as the Department for the Secretariat of the Haifa UHJ stated in a 4 June
1997 letter, "the Hands of the Cause concluded that, among all the
then existing institutions of the Faith, it was upon them, as Chief Stewards,
that the responsibility for directing the affairs of the Cause rested pending
the election of the Universal House of Justice."
So I ask once more: Can any Haifa Baha'i provide sufficient documentation
to establish conclusively that the Hands had the authority of the writings
of the Faith to do what they did when they assumed control of the Faith?
Does the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha--the "Charter of the New
World Order"--provide an irrefutable basis for the formation of a
Universal House of Justice that is minus its "sacred head"?
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
From: frankschlatter@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 21:25:59 GMT
Richard McKinley has stated that my reference to the International Baha'i
Council "is something of a red herring across the trail." I disagree.
The reference to the International Council is not a means of drawing attention
from the real issue. The issue at hand is whether the Will and Testament
for the Haifa organization is passe'. If, therefore, the International
Baha'i Council was identified by Shoghi Effendi as the embryonic Universal
House of Justice, and if, as Shoghi Effendi has said, the institutions
of the Guardianship and of the Universal House of Justice are the "two
fundamental organs of the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha" (p. 147 of "The
World Order of Baha'u'llah"), then the reference to the International
Council is definitely germane.
Clearly, the obsolescence of the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha for
the vast majority of Baha'is came when they accepted the Hands of the Faith
as their chief authority in the Cause, for once they gave the Hands the
right to act as their collective Guardian, they found it impossible to
see that the embryonic Universal House of Justice was already conceived
and in place as an organism that awaited the next stage in its evolution.
(As you know, the next stage for the Council, as set forth by Shoghi Effendi,
was one of the goals of the ten year crusade: its evolution into a Baha'i
Court in the Holy Land--a stage which the Hands by-passed.)
Richard, you have said that Shoghi Effendi extolled the Hands "as
the Faith's highest ranking officers after the Guardian and the House of
Justice." I'm not sure I have ever seen where Shoghi Effendi called
the Hands "officers." Chief Stewards--or chief servants--yes,
but not officers. In a letter written on his behalf in 1957, Shoghi Effendi
said that "the Rank and Position of the Hands of the Cause are superior
to the position of the National Assemblies," and my tattered copy
of "Messages to the Baha'i World" tells me that, in a cablegram
of February 29, 1952, he did refer to their "direction of institutions
paralleling those revolving around the Universal House of Justice,"
so, perhaps, that is where you got the concept of officers. Or do you have
one or more specific instances where Shoghi Effendi identified the Hands
as the "highest ranking officers"?
I do believe, Richard, that your aside regarding Shoghi Effendi's formation
of the International Baha'i Council in January of 1951--"in a cablegram,
not a proclamation"--is a means of denying the importance of what
the first Guardian wrote. If that should be the case, I believe you will
also need to recognize that any number of the Guardian's references to
the Hands were also in cablegrams (most of the appointments of the Hands,
for instance, came through cablegrams). So maybe the Hands were not so
important either.
I would note, though, that the word "Proclaim" is the first word
of the Guardian's message of January 9, 1951, establishing the International
Baha'i Council. Was that word used with regard to the appointment of the
Hands? If so, I don't see it in the writings that I have.
No, Richard, my reference to the International Baha'i Council was not--is
not--a red herring.
Naturally, at this time there is no way to know what would have happened
if, in 1957, all the Baha'is had had their attention directed to the International
Baha'i Council instead of to the institution of the Hands. So, Richard,
your questions about what the Council would have done differently, or what
Mason Remey would have done differently are obviously moot. We will never
get the answers to those questions in this world.
In addition, none of us can say what Shoghi Effendi had in mind by having
extolled the International Baha'i Council in the manner he did and then
maintained it in an inactive state. Nor can we know why he himself did
not identify himself as that body's president, unless he had something
else in mind when he brought that embryonic institution into being.
Finally, Richard, I am not going to accuse you of name-calling. You certainly
were not guilty of that, for which I thank you. I do believe, though, that
you have provided a number of judgments and inferences to support the position
you have espoused. I am particularly interested, for instance, in your
providing some specifics regarding what you described as "a challenge
and test that flies in the face of the teachings of Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha
and the explanations of Shoghi Effendi."
Would you please identify at least some of the teachings and explanations
that you make reference to here? I would further request that you emphasize
the teachings of 'Abdu'l-Baha and the explanations of Shoghi Effendi because
it is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha which is the true focus--the Document that,
as the first Guardian has stated, "confirms, supplements, and correlates
the provisions of the Aqdas." So the emphasis should be on what the
authorized Interpreters have provided us inasmuch as Shoghi Effendi told
us "the system of Baha'i administration derives its authority from
the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha, is specifically prescribed in unnumbered
Tablets, and rests in some of its essential features upon the explicit
provisions of the Kitab-i- Aqdas." (WOB, p. 5)
Certainly, references may be made to what was specifically prescribed and
what was explicitly provided for by Baha'u'llah; but for the rest, it is
the statements of 'Abdu'l-Baha and the explanations of Shoghi Effendi that
should be the focus. After all, as Shoghi Effendi stated, "By leaving
certain matters unspecified and unregulated in His Book of Laws, Baha'u'llah
seems to have deliberately left a gap in the general scheme of Baha'i Dispensation,
which the unequivocal provisions of the Master's Will has filled."
(WOB, p. 4)
Therefore, please bear in mind, if you will, that it is my contention that
a number of those "unequivocal provisions of the Master's Will"
are no longer operational for the Haifa organization, and that is why I
have recommended that, insofar as your organization is concerned, the authority
for your administrative order should declare the Will as passe'.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
From: frankschlatter@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 03:40:40 GMT
If the subject for the thread "Is the Will
of 'Abdu'l-Baha passe'?" were written in the form of a debate question,
it might read as follows: "Resolved that the Haifa Universal House
of Justice should declare the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha as no
longer operational for its followers."
And if the pro and con arguments that have appeared thus far in this thread
were analyzed carefully, the arguments in favor of such a resolution are
clearly more compelling by far than those that oppose the idea. To show
what I mean, let's review some of the arguments that the members of the
Haifa side have either allowed to stand without rebuttal, or in making
their arguments they resorted to inferences and judgments and thus failed
to provide supporting documentation for their views.
(1) My very first posting alone contained ten statements from the Will
and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha about which I said the followers of the Haifa
organization no longer need to be concerned, since those provisions are
no longer operational for the Haifa body. Naturally, most of the statements
pertain to the role of the Guardian of the Faith; i.e., the need for obedience
to the Guardian, the provision that the Guardian must appoint his successor
in his own life-time; the need for the Hands to elect nine who would serve
the Guardian directly; the provision that the Guardian is to nominate and
appoint Hands, who are to be under his direction; and, of course, the identification
of the Guardian as the "sacred head and the distinguished member for
life" of the UHJ. In addition, I included the statement in the Will
that the UHJ is to enact laws that are not a part of the Divine Explicit
Text, and it is clear that the Haifa UHJ can no longer claim to be in accord
with that provision inasmuch as the Haifa UHJ has changed what is within
the Will and Testament itself. (Shoghi Effendi said that the Will and the
Aqdas are "inseparable parts of one complete unit"; hence neither
can be changed by the Universal House of Justice.) No one has taken issue
with the view that those 10 statements are no longer viable for the Haifa
organization.
(2) To date, no one from the Haifa organization's perspective has countered
the view that 'Abdu'l- Baha emphasized the importance of the spiritual
family over the physical family, a position that I supported by what He
said in His last Tablet to America. In addition, those who maintain that
the word "branch" in 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will must mean a blood-line
descendant of Baha'u'llah have made an interpretation of the word "branch"
that does not completely square with what the Research Department of the
Haifa UHJ had to say on the meaning of the words "ghusn" and
"Aghsan". In a memorandum of 12 October 1994 pertaining to an
inquiry by an individual who is not a Haifa Baha'i, the Dept. wrote that
"It is clear...that there could not be any authoritative statement
limiting the meaning of these two words [ghusn and Aghsan] as they are
by nature metaphorical."
(3) To date, those from the Haifa organization have not provided statements
from the writings that unequivocally show that the Hands of the Faith had
the right to become a kind of collegial Guardian of the Cause, an interim
authority which the Hands assumed in 1957 after the passing of Shoghi Effendi.
(4) No documents of Shoghi Effendi's have been produced from Haifa Baha'is
that would counteract the first Guardian's statement of November 27, 1954,
that the construction of the International Baha'i Archives "will in
turn herald the construction, in the course of successive epochs of the
Formative Age of the Faith, of several other structures, which will serve
as the administrative seats of such divinely appointed institutions as
the Guardianship, the Hands of the Cause, and the Universal House of Justice."
(5) No Haifa Baha'i has provided documentation to show that the qualifications
for a believer in the Faith as set forth by Shoghi Effendi on October 24,
1925, were changed so that the believer no longer has to give his or her
"loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of our Beloved's sacred
Will." And yet the actions of the authorities within the Haifa organization
have made it impossible for such adherence to be given. For this reason
alone, then, the Haifa authority should declare the Will passe'.
(6) No Haifa Baha'i has provided documentation to discount what 'Abdu'l-Baha
had to say about the embryo; thus, there has not been a counter-statement
presented from the Writings to irrefutably discount the Orthodox Baha'i
position that the International Baha'i Council, the embryonic Universal
House of Justice, had all its perfections, but they were not immediately
visible.
(7) Insofar as I can tell, no Haifa Baha'is have provided any kind of a
rebuttal to my view that their organization changed the meaning of "covenant-breaking"
subsequent to the passing of Shoghi Effendi. The identification of Covenant-breakers,
according to their organization, now extends beyond 'Abdu'l-Baha's statement
in the Will that the "Hands of the Cause of God must be ever watchful
and so soon as they find anyone beginning to oppose and protest against
the guardian of the Cause of God cast him out from the congregation of
the people of Baha'." Their definition of a "covenant-breaker"
is anyone who goes against the authority in their organization-- the Hands
between 1957 and 1963 and then the Haifa UHJ from then on.
(8) There has been silence on the issue that the Hands of the Faith during
Shoghi Effendi's lifetime did not elect "from their own number nine
persons that shall at all times be occupied in the important services in
the work of the guardian..." and Shoghi Effendi's statement of Feb.
1955 in which the first Guardian said that in His Will, the Master could
not have given the Hands the authority to overrule the Guardian. (That
statement, I believe, would also apply to actions of the Hands after the
death of the first Guardian.)
(9) No one within the Haifa organization seems willing to admit that when
the Haifa UHJ took over the Huquq it found it necessary to INTERPRET a
passage from the Aqdas which it identified as "one of the most striking
passages which envisage the possibility of...a break in the line of Guardians."
The UHJ interpreted "endowments dedicated to charity" to be the
same as the Huquq, and then, because of its interpretation that the terms
"Aghsan" and "Guardians" are somehow synonymous, the
Haifa body took the reference to the House of Justice after the word "Aghsan"
to mean that it had the right to receive the Huquq. But, of course, the
terms "Aghsan" and "Guardian" are not identified by
either 'Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi as synonymous; nor has anyone in
the Haifa organization shown the Interpreters' interpretations on "endowments..."
and the Huquq. At least, no one in the current thread has documented such
interpretations.
(10) Individuals who are followers of the Haifa UHJ imply that the beliefs
of Orthodox Baha'is fly "in the face of the teachings of Baha'u'llah,
'Abdu'l-Baha, and the explanations of Shoghi Effendi," but when asked
to provide some of the teachings and explanations that are counter to those
espoused by Orthodox Baha'is, they do not give specific references from
Baha'u'llah, and especially from the two Interpreters whom they accept:
'Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi.
In conclusion, then: Because the Haifa organization has actually abandoned
some of the unequivocal provisions of the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha,
the authority within that organization should announce to its followers
that it has determined the Will to be passe' and the believers within their
organization no longer obligated to abide by the terms of that Document.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter